On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 04:36:26PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 03:22:45PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:46:25PM +0300, ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com wrote:
From: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c index 3da73ef..da318a7 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c @@ -1305,6 +1305,17 @@ static void assert_sprites_disabled(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, } }
+static void assert_vblank_disabled(struct intel_crtc *crtc) +{
- struct drm_device *dev = crtc->base.dev;
- enum pipe pipe = crtc->pipe;
- if (WARN_ON(drm_vblank_get(dev, pipe) == 0)) {
drm_vblank_put(dev, pipe);drm_vblank_off(dev, pipe);Imo the _off is too much, since with that it's not just an assert but a "... and please make it so if not". Imo better to drop that.
The idea was that if drm_vblank_get() managed to re-enable vblank interrupts when it wasn't supposed to, we should turn them off again. But the whole thing is a bug, and another drm_vblank_get() might happen just after the drm_vblank_off() anyway, so I guess it's a bit pointless.
Yeah, I guess we could also drop the _put, since something is clearly amiss already and will likely go down in flames soonish. -Daniel